Transcript Highlights:

• There is no fiscal note.
• There's no need for a fiscal note.
• Um, so that's already uh fiscal note.
• So in some of the lines fiscal note.
• So there is no fiscal and is set.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Left unspent, that surplus will carry forward into fiscal years 2028 and 2029.
• projected balance at the end of fiscal projected balance at the end of fiscal years<00:05:09.199
• future fiscal crisis. future fiscal crisis.
• likely we are to face a future fiscal likely we are to face a future fiscal cliff. cliff. cliff.
• . that fiscal discipline on this forecast. that fiscal discipline will<00:34:56.560> remain<00

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: Minnesota Management and Budget officials presented the February 2026 budget and economic forecast, saying the state remains in a strong financial position but faces continued structural imbalance and significant uncertainty. Commissioner Aaron Campbell said the FY 2026-27 balance is now projected at more than $3.7 billion, up about $1.3 billion from November, and the FY 2028-29 planning period is projected to end with a $377 million positive balance. He emphasized that the improvement comes largely from higher projected revenues, especially individual income and corporate franchise taxes, but warned that the state is increasingly reliant on more volatile sources such as capital gains, interest income, and corporate profits. State Economist Dr. Anthony Becker said the national outlook improved slightly, with stronger projected GDP, consumer spending, and investment, but weaker payroll growth and ongoing trade-policy uncertainty. He noted that the forecast was complicated by missing federal data because of the federal shutdown, and that tariffs, immigration policy, equity markets, and possible AI-related shifts all present risks. Revenue projections were raised for the current biennium, including individual income tax receipts, sales tax revenue, corporate franchise tax revenue, and other revenues, while Becker stressed that federal funding threats, especially involving Medicaid and other entitlement programs, could materially alter the outlook. State Budget Director Anna Mingi said general fund spending in the current biennium is projected to be $68 million lower than previously estimated, but planning-year spending is up $152 million. The biggest spending changes came from education, where special education costs rose sharply after updated local spending data, and from human services, where a new prepayment review process for certain Medicaid benefits reduced projected spending by $133 million this biennium and $105 million in the next. She also said discretionary inflation is now estimated at $1.04 billion, up $104 million from November. Campbell closed by saying the state’s reserve remains at a record $3.8 billion and that Minnesota’s AAA bond rating and reserve policy help protect against downturns. He cautioned, however, that the long-term structural imbalance remains about $3.4 billion in the planning years, or $2.3 billion excluding discretionary inflation, and urged policymakers to offset any new spending with reductions. No votes or formal actions were taken; the meeting was a presentation and question-and-answer session on the forecast.

Transcript Highlights:

• Moving on to the highlights for fiscal year 27 through fiscal year 30, when you look at the rates, the
• In fiscal year 24, investment income as a share of total was 14%.
• And an estimated column there for fiscal year 27.
• Moving on to fiscal year 26, as I mentioned, year-over-year growth is 0.4% over fiscal year 25, and estimated
• Okay, and how much is the fiscal... impact of that 60% deduction?

Transcript Highlights:

• omnibus fiscal bill.
• omnibus fiscal bill.
• omnibus fiscal bill.
• omnibus fiscal bill.
• Fall because the calendar, the fiscal year starts over again.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This amendment ensures the continuity of operations reduces our backlog and has no net fiscal impact.
• That conference adopted a new forecast for the current fiscal year and subsequent...
• That conference adopted a new forecast for the current fiscal year and subsequent. 22nd 2025.
• So this amendment is to support payments to hospitals for nursing costs from fiscal year 2023-24.
• get approval on, as well as one for the 2024-25 fiscal year.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:12:00.959> All in the fiscal note, right? So, yeah. All in the fiscal note, right?
• But, but the main thing is um, but look at the fiscal note, Mr. Chair.
• There's no updated fiscal note. I spoke with the Secretary of State.
• 00:14:47.839> There's<00:14:48.000> no<00:14:48.240> updated<00:14:48.639> fiscal
• There's no updated fiscal note. Correct. There's no updated fiscal note.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee took up Senate Bill 74, which requires agencies to report annually on permits that are significantly delayed. An amendment was offered and adopted to replace the bill’s original permit-by-permit reporting with a summary report by category, including counts of permits taking more than 60, 120, or 180 days and general reasons for delay. The amendment also delayed the first report until April 30, 2027, so agencies would report only on future permitting activity rather than reconstructing past files. Members discussed whether delays caused by incomplete applications or requests for additional information should be included in the reporting categories. The sponsor and others said the bill is intended to measure delays after an application is administratively complete, but that reasons such as waiting on applicant-provided engineering data could still be captured under the summary reasons. Several members praised the amendment as a substantial improvement and said it would produce more useful information with less burden on agencies, while one member said they would support the amendment but not the bill because agencies already face budget constraints. The committee first approved the amendment unanimously by show of hands, then voted 7-1 to report Senate Bill 74 ought to pass as amended, with one member opposed and one absent. Afterward, the committee briefly discussed a separate Senate message on House Bill 67, noting that the Senate version had no additional general-fund cost and that any remaining issues would be handled with the election law committee before concurrence.

Transcript Highlights:

• year 27-28, and $6.4 billion in fiscal year 28-29.
• Is this fiscally responsible to do this? Thank you, Mr.
• We are a fiscally responsible city. We are conservative.
• We have been fiscally conservative with our property taxes.
• Constitutional limitations that reduce long-term fiscal flexibility may introduce risks. long-term fiscal

Summary: The Committee on Appropriations took up SJR 2-F, a proposed constitutional amendment to reduce property taxes by lowering assessment caps on non-homestead property, expanding homestead exemptions over time, and allowing local governments to increase exemptions further. The sponsor argued the measure would provide broad property tax relief while requiring revenues to be directed to core services such as public safety, education, infrastructure, and natural resource projects, with a trust fund intended to help local governments transition. Senators raised concerns about the lack of a fiscal score, the effect on counties, cities, school districts, and special districts, and whether the proposal would shift costs to fees or other taxes. Several amendments were debated. Senator Polsky’s amendment to explicitly authorize user fees and non-ad valorem assessments to offset lost property tax revenue failed. Senator Avila’s amendment broadening permissible uses of ad valorem revenue to include county constitutional officers and other expenditures approved by local governing bodies was adopted after debate over whether the bill would otherwise underfund essential functions. Senator Smith’s sunset amendment, which would have made the constitutional changes expire after five years, failed. Senator Smith’s amendment to allow tourism development tax revenue to support public safety and education also failed. Senator Graal’s amendment removing the constitutional trust fund language was adopted, with supporters arguing the Constitution should not promise an unfunded account. Additional late-file amendments were considered. Senator Berman’s proposal to change the ballot title to more neutrally describe the measure as affecting property taxes and local community service reductions failed. Senator Trumbull’s amendment removing school board ad valorem taxes from the proposal was adopted, preserving school taxes. Senator Smith’s amendment narrowing the non-homestead assessment cap reduction to small businesses only failed. The committee then returned to the bill as amended and continued questioning the sponsor about eligibility, fiscal impacts, and whether the proposal could lead to local governments offsetting lost revenue through special assessments or other charges.

Transcript Highlights:

• tax rate cut uh and I'm using fiscal tax rate cut uh and I'm using fiscal year<00:19:13.919>
• 27, starting in fiscal 27, and then the revenue increases, or is projected to increase, in fiscal 28
• There is an estimated net gain for the two of $1.7 million in fiscal 28 and $2.7 million in fiscal 29
• In fiscal 26, and that appropriation grows to $1.4 million in fiscal 27, and it is ongoing.
• There are estimates that I've read that the... fiscal 28 and 2.7 million in fiscal fiscal 28 and 2.7

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 2437, the governor’s proposed tax bill, and first adopted the A25-Z42 amendment to put the bill in the desired shape. Commissioner Paul Marquardt of the Department of Revenue then presented the bill as part of Governor Walz and Lieutenant Governor Flanagan’s budget, describing it as a response to budget pressures that would make the tax system more fair and stable while supporting economic development and jobs. Marquardt walked through the bill’s major provisions. These included sustainable aviation fuel policy, repeal of K-12 education credit assignment, elimination of the political contribution refund, expansion of the research and development credit, short-line railroad infrastructure modernization, changes to the state airport fund levy, replacement of attachments and appearances with distribution systems, a narrow personal property tax exception for low-income housing tenants, reduced aquatic invasive species aid, and a 34% reduction in PILT payments. He then focused on the sales tax article, saying it would lower the statewide rate by 0.75% while expanding the base to selected professional services such as accounting, banking, brokerage, and legal services, with business-to-business transactions exempt. He said the proposal would be effective for sales and purchases after September 30, 2025, and estimated a first-year rate-cut impact of about $99 million versus $215 million from the service expansion, while arguing that most households would see a net tax cut. He also noted other changes such as landlord penalty adjustments, a 30% reduction in sustainable aviation fuel incentive payments, repeal of local government cannabis aid, and repeal of the tax filing modernization account. Public testimony began with Kyle Playford of the Financial Planning Association of Minnesota, who strongly opposed the proposed sales tax on professional services, especially financial planning. He argued that financial planning is an essential service for retirement, investment, and long-term financial security, and said the tax would raise costs for consumers, reduce access for middle-class families, small business owners, and retirees, and put Minnesota firms at a competitive disadvantage. The chair then indicated that additional public testimony would continue before member questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Next, our fiscal analyst. Megan, thank you, Mr. Chair. Megan Bur, fiscal analyst for higher ed.
• even um you know whether it be a fiscal even um you know whether it be a fiscal year<00:21:40.720
• We had 280 students receiving it in fiscal year 24, about $1.7 million was awarded, and then in fiscal
• they're student teaching uh in fiscal they're student teaching uh in fiscal year<00:46:41.520>
• efforts for people with ALS um in fiscal efforts for people with ALS um in fiscal year<01:04:52.160

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So the budget includes $131.8 million in fiscal year 2025-26 for the eight... 31.8 million in fiscal
• CDFA requests the remaining $25 million in authorized grant funding in fiscal year 2026-27.
• It's $9.3 million for each program, and the remainder, $9.2 million each, in fiscal year 2026-27.
• CDF requests the remaining $25 million in authorized grant funding in fiscal year 2627.
• each program, and the remainder, $9.2 million each in fiscal year 26-27.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee heard the administration’s spending plan for Proposition 4’s climate smart agriculture and biodiversity chapters, along with related trailer bill language. CDFA outlined proposed funding for existing programs such as SWEEP, Healthy Soils, Urban Agriculture, and invasive species work, plus new or phased-in programs including year-round and mobile farmers’ markets, tribal food sovereignty, and regional farm equipment sharing. The Department of Conservation described funding for the California Farmland Conservancy Program and Working Lands and Riparian Corridors Program, while the Department of Finance and LAO discussed pending allocations and generally found the overall approach reasonable, though LAO suggested the Legislature may want more statutory guidance and reporting, especially for new programs. Members focused on implementation details, equity, and accountability. Questions covered how programs would serve vulnerable and disadvantaged communities, whether new solicitations would be reopened for previously oversubscribed grants, how outcomes are tracked, and how to structure guidance for new programs such as farm equipment sharing. The chair emphasized that the Legislature wants clearer direction on program design and noted that AB 2313 should guide implementation of the regional farm equipment sharing allocation. The committee also discussed the administration’s request to directly appropriate bond funds to departments and to exempt bond program guidelines from the Administrative Procedures Act; LAO supported the APA exemption with possible legislative guardrails for public notice and comment. The committee then heard on the farm-to-school proposal, with CDFA requesting $24.9 million General Fund for incubator grants, technical assistance, and network support. CDFA said the program has reached nearly half of California schoolchildren and has shown strong demand and positive evaluation results. LAO supported the core program but recommended rejecting the $3 million technical assistance component as too broad and suggested the Legislature consider using Proposition 98 for some of the funding. Members debated that point, with some expressing concern about using General Fund dollars for a new discretionary request during a tight budget year. The biodiversity and nature-based solutions chapter included funding for the Wildlife Conservation Board, state conservancies, and tribal nature-based solutions. WCB described major recent investments and proposed projects tied to 30 by 30, habitat restoration, tribal partnerships, and public access. Members raised concerns about long-term stewardship, the size of the WCB allocation, and whether the Legislature should receive more detail on how funds will be distributed. The committee also heard requests for Bolsa Chica wetlands maintenance and Rincon Island decommissioning funding from the State Lands Commission, with members questioning long-term liability, remediation costs, and the role of private oil operators. No votes were taken, and the hearing ended with public comment from stakeholders largely supporting the APA exemption, farm-to-school funding, biodiversity investments, and related conservation programs.

Transcript Highlights:

• especially since HB 1326, passed by the 79th Legislature, removed judges from most operational and fiscal
• First and foremost is the fact that I read a fiscal bill that the LBB put out that I disagree with.
• The LBB had indicated there's no fiscal impact to this change. Harris County is...
• 330 on top of the 140, that would all have to be approved by one agency between July and when the fiscal
• We have an in-depth fiscal process.

Bills: SB663, SB958

Keywords: community supervision, budget approval, corrections department, strategic plan, judicial oversight, SB 958, Texas Government Code, nondisclosure, order of nondisclosure, criminal history record information, trafficking of persons, human trafficking, compelling prostitution, survivor rights, record sealing, expunction, deferred adjudication, prostitution, controlled substances, theft

Transcript Highlights:

• so how many days were there um in fiscal so how many days were there um in fiscal year<00:16:07.120
• <00:16:09.720> year year last year last year fiscal year year last year last year fiscal year
• current fiscal than fiscal the current fiscal year um<03:33:15.359> this<03:33:15.479> should
• So, um, fiscal year 24 was a year.
• Service labs at the end of the fiscal Service labs at the end of the fiscal year<04:19:45.600>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard from the Personnel Appeals Board, which explained that it became an independent state agency after Senate Bill 487 and was presenting its first standalone operating budget. The board described its quasi-judicial role in hearing appeals from classified state employees over disciplinary actions such as warnings, suspensions, and terminations, and said it handles about 25 to 35 cases a year, with some cases lasting longer because of their complexity. Members also outlined the need for a chair and vice chair who are attorneys, the board’s current staffing and space needs, and its plan to move away from reliance on Administrative Services for office support and website functions. The board requested about $353,500 for fiscal year 2026, including startup costs, routine operating expenses, and two new part-time positions: a program director and a paralegal. Members said the budget reflects the new independent status, includes funding for only four board members rather than the authorized five, and is designed to avoid full-time staffing costs and benefits. Legislators asked about the cost per case, the board’s relationship to DAS, whether appeals must go through the board before court, and how often cases are appealed further. The board said appeals must first go through it, that court appeals are infrequent but have increased recently, and that the board’s process is intended to resolve disputes more quickly and less expensively than court litigation. Committee members also asked about the board’s caseload, outcomes, and staffing. The board said that in the prior year there were 22 cases, with four decisions overturned in favor of employees, nine dismissals, and nine settlements, and that many disputes are resolved before reaching the board through a multi-step internal process. A member noted the governor and council had recently approved a new board member and were expected to approve a fifth soon. The discussion ended with questions about the board’s website and records access, which members said would need to be moved from Administrative Services as part of the agency’s transition. The committee then moved to the New Hampshire Council on Developmental Disabilities. The executive director explained that the council is 100 percent federally funded under the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act and develops a five-year plan to address the needs of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. She said the council works with state agencies and advocacy organizations on quality-of-life issues, accessibility, voter rights training, and plain-language or easy-to-read materials, and that 60 percent of its membership must be individuals with disabilities or family members/guardians. She also described the council’s funding structure, including reimbursement to the state for operating costs, and noted that it currently has three full-time and three part-time positions, with no new positions requested but one full-time position being eliminated and replaced after a pandemic-era staffing change did not work out as planned.

Transcript Highlights:

• year 2025-26, and $102.2 million one-time in fiscal year 2026-27.
• This proposal requests project funding for two fiscal years in the amount of $2.42 million in fiscal
• This is really meant for the upcoming fiscal year.
• The system introduces new volatility into the budget and fiscal forecasting processes.
• And so that's sort of the fiscal implication there.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• year 2025-26, and $102.2 million one-time in fiscal year 2026-27.
• This proposal requests project funding for two fiscal years in the amount of $2.42 million in fiscal
• This is really meant for the upcoming fiscal year.
• The system introduces new volatility into the budget and fiscal forecasting processes.
• So that's the fiscal implication there.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held a May Revision hearing covering several health-related budget proposals and broader concerns about the state’s budget structure. The Chair opened by praising some May Revision changes, such as added health IT funding, county administration support tied to Medi-Cal changes, a delay in Medi-Cal cuts for some lawfully present immigrants, and additional support for Covered California subsidies, while criticizing proposed increases in Medi-Cal premiums, changes to senior eligibility, the lack of a Medi-Cal dental solution, and other reductions affecting counties, mobile crisis units, workforce incentives, and physician shortages. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the state’s budget condition remains weak despite progress on the structural deficit, and the Department of Finance said the May Revision uses a mix of reductions, reforms, revenue proposals, and fund shifts to cut out-year deficits. The committee first heard Department of State Hospitals proposals, including adjustments to county bed billing authority, contract exemption language for online clinical/pharmacy subscriptions, reversion of unspent funds, a revised Metro Central Utility Plant replacement project, electronic health record implementation, and workforce development funded partly through Behavioral Health Services Act resources. DSH also described savings and realignments in incompetent-to-stand-trial and conditional release programs, including extending the independent placement panel program and shifting funds to support additional bed capacity and a mental health rehab center. Members asked about the use of BHSA funds for workforce programs, and the department said the proposal would replace General Fund support with BHSA reimbursements. The Emergency Medical Services Authority proposed funding for statewide behavioral health crisis response guidance and for enterprise system development, and the Department of Managed Health Care proposed modernization of its complaint system and claims-settlement data system to improve oversight and comply with AB 3275. The largest discussion centered on the administration’s BHSA spending plan under Proposition 1, including state-directed prevention, workforce, and other uses, plus General Fund offsets for existing programs. The LAO questioned whether some proposed offsets fit Proposition 1’s non-supplant and eligible-use requirements, while the administration argued the uses were consistent with the measure and that the state-directed share can be adjusted annually. The Commission for Behavioral Health’s proposals drew the most public and member concern. The administration proposed cutting the commission’s Innovation Partnership Fund from $20 million to $10 million and reducing the Community Advocacy Program by $6.7 million, while redirecting BHSA dollars to other state purposes and direct services. Commissioners, advocates, and several members argued the cuts would weaken community voice, reduce support for underserved populations, and disrupt grants already in process; they also objected to using BHSA funds to backfill General Fund commitments. Public commenters, including youth, disability, behavioral health, LGBTQ, tribal, veteran, immigrant, and community-based organization representatives, overwhelmingly opposed the cuts and urged preservation of prevention, advocacy, mobile crisis, and innovation funding. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• ; fiscal year 2028, $330,000; and then for fiscal year 2029, $2.06 million.
• <00:18:20.960> year this um for fiscal year this um for fiscal year 2026<00:18:23.000>
• <00:18:34.440> year 110,000 did I that right um fiscal year 110,000 did I that right um fiscal
• It was $50 million each fiscal years 24 and 25. Last year it is now $65,000 for fiscal year 26.
• It was $50 million each fiscal years 24 and 25. Last year it is now $65,000 for fiscal year 26.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Vincent Steiner, Accelerate Mississippi Fiscal Manager.
• MDES is the fiscal agent for Accelerate Mississippi.
• That's what our role as fiscal agent is for.
• by 13 positions compared to last fiscal by 13 positions compared to last fiscal year's<00:04:08.239
• this fiscal year, this upcoming fiscal this fiscal year, this upcoming fiscal year,<00:35:01.200

Keywords: Appropriations - Room 210; 14 January, 2026: 3:30 PM, 925, all

Summary: MDES presented its FY27 budget request, describing the agency as a special fund workforce agency focused on helping Mississippians get jobs through employment services, labor market information, and unemployment insurance. Executive Director Bill Ashley said the revised request seeks level spending authority similar to FY26, with line-item changes driven mainly by higher salaries and fringe benefits and lower contractual services. He said MDES currently has 406 employees, 28 active recruitments, and six additional planned positions, for a requested total of 440 positions, down from 453 authorized last year. The request also includes $1.4 million for the State Longitudinal Data System and $400,000 for Accelerate Mississippi fiscal support. Committee members asked about the SLDS pass-through funding, whether it is recurring, and the staffing/pin changes; MDES explained the SLDS is a recurring annual pass-through and that the staffing request reflects turnover and recruitment needs rather than a net expansion. Accelerate Mississippi then outlined its FY27 request and program updates. Officials said the office is requesting level funding overall, with some salary adjustments tied to benefits and two new positions, including one for Talent Solutions and one systems administrator. They described workforce initiatives such as Encore, a recruiter/instructor program; Facet, a partnership with Northwest Mississippi Community College to strengthen instructor preparation; Power Path, a K-12 advanced manufacturing credential model; and expanded career coach activity, reporting 204 coaches serving 209 schools and more than 22,000 unique student interactions. They also reviewed funding streams for workforce enhancement training, Mississippi Works, Equip Mississippi, and ARPA, saying ARPA funds are on track to be fully spent by the September 30 reimbursement deadline and that monthly check-ins are being used to ensure funds are drawn down. Members asked about the budget changes, the use of contractual services, and the career coach program; the office said it was shifting some audit and monitoring costs to the funds being monitored and was not requesting an increase for career coach funding. The Mississippi community college presidents and the Community College Board also presented their budget priorities. They reported that Mississippi community colleges served 88,600 students in academic year 2023 and said the system’s graduation rate is about 42 percent, with a goal of reaching 55 percent. Their FY27 request includes a 6 percent salary increase for employees, increased basic operations funding, and continued support for CTE Advantage programs, totaling $61.5 million in general support. On facilities, they requested $150 million after receiving no facilities funding last year, citing roughly $413 million in identified needs across capital improvements, repairs and renovations, and pre-planning. The Community College Board requested restoration of $310,000 in general fund cuts and a new $2 million appropriation for adult education, noting that an estimated 300,000 to 330,000 Mississippians lack a high school diploma. No votes were taken during the presentations.

Transcript Highlights:

• Fiscal years 26 and 27 on this sheet are fiscally constrained, and for fiscal year 26 we have about $44.6
• year 26 27 28 and 29 fiscal year 26 and 27 on this sheet 28 and 29 fiscal year 26 and 27 on this sheet
• is fiscally constraint and for fiscal year 26 we have about 44.6 million and that's we have about nine
• So that is the snapshot for fiscal year 25.
• For fiscal year 25, we have MAP funding, municipal co-op agreements.

Keywords: 996, all

Summary: The committee first took up HB 322, which would create a transportation trust fund and transportation program fund. The sponsor offered and the committee adopted an amendment striking the section that would have imposed a 1% gross receipts tax on electricity sales. After a recap of the bill’s remaining provisions, including a $400 million seed amount and future transfers from motor vehicle excise tax revenue, the committee heard brief support from Associated Contractors of New Mexico and the Asphalt Pavement Association and no opposition. The amended bill then passed on a roll-call vote. The committee then heard HB 270, a public works/apprenticeship bill that would require contributions to approved apprenticeship and training programs or to the Public Works Apprentice and Training Fund for public works construction projects, while eliminating an exemption for certain road, highway, utility, and maintenance work. Supporters, including union carpenters, electrical workers, the building trades council, and apprenticeship advocates, argued the bill would expand training, help address labor shortages, and provide a return on public investment. Opponents from utility contractors, highway contractors, and Associated Contractors of New Mexico said they already operate federally approved in-house training programs, warned the bill would raise project costs, and argued some trades have no accessible approved programs. Members questioned how the bill would interact with existing in-house programs, whether rural contractors and nonunion firms would be affected, and whether the state-approved fund and federal highway training requirements could conflict. A proposed amendment to exempt projects of $50 million or less was introduced but tabled. After extensive debate, the committee voted 6-5 to pass HB 270. The meeting also included discussion of a prior procedural error in which HB 270 had been heard before being properly assigned, which the chair said rendered that earlier action void. At the end of the meeting, the committee received a brief New Mexico Department of Transportation District 3 presentation on district projects, budget, and construction status.

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll call the Fiscal Committee meeting to order for our meeting on September 5th.
• It was actually a request made for 25 funds in November, but that fiscal year is closed on September
• So for the next fiscal committee, that old business will be removed; no further actions needed from the
• It was actually a request made for 25 funds in November, but that fiscal year is closed on September
• I want to thank my colleague Senator Gray for raising this issue in our pre-fiscal meeting.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee first approved the June 20, 2025 minutes, with several members abstaining, and then adopted the consent calendar after removing items 223 and 224 under tab five, item 222 under tab six, and item 231 under tab seven. The committee also noted that an old business item related to YDC claims administration would be removed at a future meeting because the fiscal year had closed and no further committee action was needed. The main substantive discussion centered on Department of Health and Human Services requests. Item FIS-223 would fund a shared database between the Department of Education and HHS to identify children eligible for the summer EBT program; members asked whether it could also help with Medicaid or school reimbursement tracking, but the witness said the item was specifically for summer EBT and that broader integration questions would need follow-up with Education and Medicaid staff. The committee then adopted the item, with Representative Mooney voting no. Item FIS-224 concerned the phrase "high quality services" in child care-related funding; HHS said the standards come from the federal Office of Child Care, and the committee adopted the item. Item FIS-222 related to Money Follows the Person; HHS explained it is a 100% federally funded program that supports transitions from institutions to community living with services such as housing navigation, furnishings, and case management. Members questioned the scale and cost of the program, and HHS said the initial federal award was $5 million, with additional federal IT funding later approved; the committee adopted the item, again with Representative Mooney voting no. Under tab seven, the committee discussed item 231 involving ARPA funds and the YDC project. The Department of Administrative Services explained that recent Treasury guidance allows leftover ARPA dollars from approved projects to be repurposed only for additional work on already approved projects, not new projects. Members asked about whether the project was over budget and whether some items had been in the original plan; officials said the work reflected add alternates from the original bid and that the project was on track to meet the deadline. The committee adopted the item. The meeting then moved to the audit presentation on the New Hampshire Liquor Commission’s fiscal year 2024 management letter, which identified 13 internal control comments, including two material weaknesses, largely tied to the new NextG system. Recommendations included strengthening controls, formal risk assessment, reconciliations to New Hampshire First, cash receipt controls, subsidiary ledgers, SOC reports for vendors, internal audit functions, lease accounting, gift card breakage reporting, and IT security and access controls. The Liquor Commission said it concurred with most findings, described the system transition as successful overall, and said remediation would continue; committee members asked for estimated completion dates for audit findings and discussed the need for more regular follow-up on audit issues and budget monitoring.

Transcript Highlights:

• The appropriations from fiscal year 2023 to 2025 to each higher education institution.
• Now let's move forward to fiscal year 2024 on page 3.
• In fiscal year 2024, you will see that we also received $20 million.
• The start of the fiscal year is July 1st. Once again, it was new for us.
• I will tell you, as of this fiscal year, fiscal year 2026, all of that was done by the first week of

Transcript Highlights:

• For each fund, the annual fiscal year.
• Um the fiscal note helpful with that.
• So the fiscal note behavior management.
• fiscal note.
• isn't a fiscal note for that.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The work session began with HB 656, as amended, which would treat federal funds received by school districts as unanticipated money unless already listed in the annual report, and would require notices and school board minutes to identify the grant and summarize any obligations attached to accepting it. Supporters said the bill was aimed at transparency so voters would understand the “strings attached” to grants, while opponents raised concerns that the amendment was new, potentially vague, and could require districts to publish lengthy or redundant information, increasing costs and administrative burden. Several members suggested alternative approaches, such as a state-level list of common grant obligations or posting grant documents online. No vote was taken, and some members argued the bill was not ready for action. The committee then moved to HB 665, which would expand eligibility for free school meals to households at up to 300% of federal poverty guidelines and use education trust fund money to cover the added cost. Representative Damon strongly supported the bill, citing food insecurity and arguing the fiscal note likely overstated costs because the bill requires at least one free meal, not necessarily both breakfast and lunch. The discussion was just beginning when the transcript ended, and no vote or final action on HB 665 was recorded in the excerpt.